posted on December 22, 2000 03:05:33 PM
Donny - Civil = legal proceedings relating to private rights. She had the 'right' to sue him for sexual harrassment.
How did he violate her civil rights? First by attempting to use his power as a president to get the case thrown out since no other president had been tried in a civil case before, while in office. Meaning I saw it as his using the office of president to not allow Paula Jones to rightfull seek redress. Then making untrue statements.
In sum, the record leaves no doubt that the President violated this court's discovery orders regarding disclosure of information deemed by this court to be relevant to plaintiff's lawsuit. The court therefore adjudges the President to be in civil contempt of court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2). from: http://www10.nytimes.com/library/politics/041399clinton-text.html
Donny, this is old. He settled with Paula Jones, and paid big. In my opinion only, a president who had not done with she accused him of also would not have settled, but fought it to the bitter end. He cut his losses and went on.
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 22, 2000 03:07 PM ]
posted on December 22, 2000 03:08:35 PMLinda_K: I don't buy it. She "was afraid of losing her job" then, but not later? He propositioned her & she said no. Why wait until he's president to *really* do something about it?
As for the Lewinsky matter, it was blown all out of proportion. She was not a "girl" but rather a consenting adult. And it was Hilary's place to make something of the affair, not Starr's or the country-at-large. So many people acted so shocked & scandalized--as if he's the first man to ever have an affair (or the first president for that matter. Get real). The *real* embarrassment in the whole matter was Starr & his ilk who made sure it got & stayed in the headlines for several long months. They fairly panted over it like salacious schoolboys.
posted on December 22, 2000 03:17:07 PM
hi bunnicula - What I'm not making myself clear on, (my fault) is that I don't care one eyeoda about the sex part. It's a persons rights being violated by a sitting president lying under oath. Not sex...not sex....I could care less what he does with whom as long as it doesn't break any laws.
As for her waiting for so long, I'm not here trying to defend her or any of his other lady friends. They were all adults. Why they did what they did doesn't matter to me.
He lied under oath....that could have/did obstruct justice.
posted on December 22, 2000 03:30:14 PM
As far as I know, it is not against the law for a man to propostition a woman. She wasn't forcibly dragged into his room, merely escorted--an she left without a fight after she said "no." Then, when he became president, she saw a way to get a lot of money out of him.
As for justice, it's supposed to be for everyone in this country. Him as well. That witch hunt we were treated to for so many months doesn't fit that description. Lies? Yes, that was a mistake--he should have told them where to shove it.
posted on December 22, 2000 03:47:43 PM
bunnicula - Just wanted to make one more statement, then I'm off to fix our dinner.
No, she wasn't forced into his hotel room. But maybe one could just try to think that .....just maybe she didn't know what she was going to face when she got there. As a young girl who'd been invited to meet with a sitting governor I could imagine that maybe she felt honored to meet him and wasn't thinking he was going to drop his pants and offer her that suggestion.
If a CEO in any corporate company did that, they'd be sued for sexual harrassment. Our president should then be an exception? Not in my way of thinking.
Why did she wait so long to file. No one will really ever know the truth to that....we can speculate all we want. I'd think a clerk might just feel a little bit intimidated. Later I could understand that with support from others, she felt a little more powerful to correct a wrong she felt had been committed against her. Or maybe with the other claims of the same being made against him she felt stronger. Maybe she had alterior motives. Who knows?
Like I said it's about the lying....not the sex to me.
What he did was sexual harrassment. He has/had enormous power as a governor. Now, maybe I could agree with your idea if she'd been told, "The governor is inviting you to perform oral sex on him." Just maybe one might give her the benefit of the doubt.
Edited - as I was in too big a hurry to take care of my husband's growling stomach. Sorry.
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 22, 2000 03:56 PM ]
"Civil = legal proceedings relating to private rights"
But that's not "civil rights."
It seems to me, from what you've posted, that you've believed that
"It was a president who was accused of sexual harrassment when he was Governor of Arkansas by an employee of the state."
and that a civil rights violation was involved.
A little Christmas story (I'll preface it by saying I'm not a guy.)
When I was a teenager, 16 or 17 or so, my very beautiful, 5'8" blue-eyed blond best friend Barbara and I were browsing around a mostly empty KMart one afternoon. KMart had set up some guy in a Santa suit, sitting in the middle of the store. As we passed by, Santa called out to us - "Ho, ho, ho, Merry Christmas! How about coming and sitting on Santa's lap, girls?"
That was peculiar, and, as a pick-up strategy, not recommendable to anyone hoping for success, much like Clinton's attempted seduction of Paula Jones. But that's not "sexual harassment," it's just a lousy technique. For the curious, Santa didn't get any further with us than Clinton did with Jones.
Anyway, the Clinton thing is old, but not as old as Andrew Johnson's impeachment. At the time of Johnson's impeachment, regular people like us must have thought it was something other than a bogus device by extreme political partisans to set up a President, since Grant, who had a part in engineering the circumstances that led to the impeachment, was elected President next.
But, away from the passions of the day, with the objectivity and distance that time brings, people see it for the political ploy it was, and they probably will with this impeachment also. That some of us can't see that now is how stuff like this works.
posted on December 22, 2000 06:13:10 PMHe settled with Paula Jones, and paid big. In my opinion only, a president who had not done with she accused him of also would not have settled, but fought it to the bitter end. He didn't "pay" big at all. In fact there was a big fracas over the whole payment deal with the myriad lawyers fighting over who got what cut, which by "settlement" standards was pretty paltry. Paula Jones got practically zilch, hardly enough to make the whole thing worth her time, unless you count the cellulite sucking, the couple inches off her nose, new wardrobe and haircut, and living for years off of the sugar daddy chums of Kenneth Starr. She's back where she started, dead broke, and trying to sell pictures of her naked body to make a buck. Clinton didn't have the money anyway, the funds were paid from donations paid to a defense committee. (I think headed by Terry McAuliffe). As for "settlements", there was no admission from Clinton as to her "allegations", and settling cases like this just to finally get rid of it is the norm rather than the rarity. And in fact, the Starr people were feeding information to the Jones lawyers, and had already filled them in on the Monica deal, and told the Jones lawyers just what "question" to ask. This was organized collusion and a partisan effort to "get" Clinton, and a textbook example of Newt's scorched earth policy from whom alot of these had taken classes from in the first place. Donny's right. He was set up and boxed into a corner where there was no "right" answer. And you know what? If I were in the same circumstances, I can honestly say that I probably would have said the same thing as Clinton. And so would every other sitting President. Why don't we get GW to make a sworn statement as to whether he has had ever screwed around on Laura, and when was the last time. Do you honestly think he would admit it? He couldn't even admit he was a coke user and a drunk driver, which in the eyes of certain Republican leaders is a lesser crime than screwing around on your wife.
KatyD
[ edited by KatyD on Dec 22, 2000 06:14 PM ]
posted on December 22, 2000 06:19:37 PM
And as I remember, disclosing confidential information in a pending federal investigation violates some laws, I think. And Starr got into trouble for that but managed to weasel out of it by blaming one of his lowly flunkies for the leak. So more than one side can play the "deny, deny, deny" game. It's just politics as usual.
posted on December 22, 2000 11:23:12 PM newSgtMike said, "Linda_K is the Rush Limbaugh of AW." "she has wondrously and accurately . . ."
Not so.
Linda_K:"and said, "I did not have sex with that woman". (ML)"
Wrong.
Clinton sat there, wagged his finger and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
Worlds of difference. He never did have sexual relations with Monica. Splitting hairs, like I said, but no lie. And no amount of your wishing it was will make it so.
Linda_K:"What an example that is to our children when the President lies to a court."
Do you mean like when Ronald Reagan admitted to lying to Congress about the Iran-Contra scandal? Lying to Congress is a Federal Felony, but he got away scott free. Yet, I don't see you or anyone else suggesting that he be proscecuted. That's because Ronald Regan was a Republican, and somehow, that's different. He lied to Congress, to the tv camera to us, and it's OK. Linda_K, let's see you go trying to get Ronny incarcerated - LOL!
I can continue to pick apart the nonsense of the Conservative Media-bltiz -- all too easily. Had there really been anything to it, the GOP and the Conservatives would have found Clinton guilty and Ipeached him. Even now, with all of the hot-gas being promtoed by the Concervatives about Clinton somehow still being guilty of something, it has yet to be proved. If it was proveable, he would have been prosecuted. Ergo - no crime committed.
posted on December 23, 2000 02:10:50 AM new
He was indeed impeached (which means to charge a public official with misconduct in office before an appropriate tribunal). However, he was also acquitted.
It is interesting that an encyclopedia notes:
"The impeachment proceedings against Clinton were highly politicized, with almost all Democrats supporting the president and almost all Republicans opposing him. This imbalance made it difficult to conclude that Clinton's impeachment was an impartial process."
posted on December 23, 2000 05:23:38 AM new
Wow, bunnicula. It's already in an encyclopedia?? It just happened THIS year. News travels fast these days.
posted on December 23, 2000 06:44:40 AM new
Okay...just a couple comments..then I promise not to return to this thread. No clapping please.
A 25 year old IS young to me, at my age.
KatyD - $850,000 is a big settlement to me. I understand that the attorneys received most of it. That seems to be the way it usually is. The attorneys are usually the only winners in most cases, financially. In the URL I posted above, the judge had ordered Clinton to pay $90,000 to her attorneys and $1200.00 to the court for its costs because the judge found his testimony to be false and misleading.
No truer words have been spoken here than when you said, "...it's all politics as usual." I totally agree with you there.
Borillar - What I said was true. If you had read the URL above you'd have seen that it's not just MY saying he lied about the having sex, or sexual relations, but the judges as well. While I can certainly understand you not taking my word for the truth...at least there could be some credit given to the judges ruling in the case.
Taken from that URL above: "Simply put, the President's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false, notwithstanding tortured definitions and interpretations of the term "sexual relations."
On the Ronald Reagan issue...I really don't care to go back even further in our history. This has been enough fun for me, thanks. But just so you know...I don't think RRs lying to congress is okay at all and I never said that. As I've tried to be clear on....if anybody has broken the law, there should be consequences. I have respect for our laws and our courts. They may not be perfect, but they're all we've got. If we don't respect their judgements/opinions/decisions (whether or not we agree with them) then I think we're in a heap of trouble as a nation.
I hope each and everyone of you has a wonderful holiday experience with your friends and family. Happy Holidays to all.
posted on December 23, 2000 11:46:07 AM new
Borillar is a fanatic, don't bother trying to talk to him.
I think the truth is something more like this -
Clinton probably did every stupid sexual thing people said he did (Except the Willey thing, that doesn't hold up. He probably fooled around with her, but with her consent, and maybe even at her initiative.)
But even though he did do those things, it's not something you impeach a president over. No matter that he was Governor of Texas when he met Jones, it's not sexual harassment because she wasn't working for him. And where there any allegations that after she refused his stupid advances that he took action to make her suffer economically? Did she lose her job at the hotel?
He's a dog, he saw some bimbo, thought he might be able to get some, tried, she said no, that was it. With Lewinsky, he was a dog, thought he might be able to get some, tried, and she said yes.
When he got caught, he lied. "It's not what it looks like" is the classic line for any guy caught in bed with a woman. So what?
"if anybody has broken the law, there should be consequences."
That's not right or, if it is right, it's only right as far as it goes. Jaywalking is against a law, and one of the penalties for breaking a law is 20 years in prison. Does it follow that anyone caught jaywalking should spend 20 years in prison?
Fooling around with a woman might be against the law, and lying about it under oath in court is breaking the law. But it doesn't follow that impeachment is the appropriate consequence. When a consequence is so far out of line with an action, the important problem is the severity of the consequence, not the fact of the action. That's why even those of us who can accept the truthfulness of the allegations of Clinton's actions still find the consequence to be wrong.
Andrew Johnson did violate the Tenure of Office act, no doubt about it. That shouldn't have been an impeachable offense either, but he was impeached. Political fanaticism then, and now, had no regard for anything other than its own agenda.
posted on December 23, 2000 12:39:44 PM new
um..."governor of Texas"? donny? A little "freudian"slip? heh, heh.
Actually, the damages Jones was trying to get stemmed from her getting a job with the state of Arkansas (at a later date) and being unable to either stay hired, or get promoted, or a pay raise, or something like that. Supposedly this was supposed to be in retribution for the "wienie wagging" incident. I've always thought that the true scenario was that Jones was invited to his hotel room, accepted, was propositioned, and accepted that as well. Later, convinced that she could get a couple of bucks out of the whole thing, her story changed. There was only the two of them there so who's going to be telling it like it really was? She (and her handlers)knew that either way Clinton was screwed. He couldn't exactly come out and say, "Hey, that's not the way it was. I asked and you said YES!" As for that rumored distinctive feature of his..err...."private part", I doubt if Clinton had "flashed" her and she immediately turned away horrified to run for her life, that it would have been enough time for her to notice in such detail as to recall it so specifically years after the "incident". Not unless she had some "acquaintance" with it close up and personal. Nah, I never believed her story. Just never made sense to me.
Federal regulations define sexual harassment as: "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature when...
submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment;
submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or
such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment."
posted on December 23, 2000 11:33:08 PM newdonny, you're right. There is no law against asking someone else of legal age to have sex. She answered NO and that was that. You know, George Bush Sr. reportedly still has that mistress of his that he was screwing the whole time that he was in the White House. But of course, since he was a Republican, he's more moral! How can Republican voters not gag on this hypocracy by their political party?
posted on December 24, 2000 06:50:22 AM new
Okay, I have learned to never promise anything when I post, as krs seems to bring out the worst in me when he suggests that 'my spin' might belong in the disposal.
Thanks for posting the legal definition, but the suit was filed as sexual harassment with the courts, and was heard. The court didn't dismiss it because it didn't meet the legal definition of the word, because it did.
Donny Re your last post about the consequences not fitting the 'crime', I could agree if this was just about the sexual part. But again, I draw my line when it comes to lying under oath. And in your example of jaywalking, yes I'd agree with you. But this wasn't about a simple infraction of our laws that carried too heavy a consequence.
Now....to relook at some facts. According to the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/complaint.htm (click on the word chronology), it states that in 5-91 Paula Jones was a low level employee of the state of Arkansas while Clinton was governor. But she was working as a clerk that night in the Excelsior Hotel. But when someone made the comment about her working at the Excelsior and not being a state (of AR) employee, I thought I had my dates of her employment wrong. They were not. On http://www.comedyzine.com/tirade17.html while I don't agree with their 'take' they, too, state she was at the time of his advance, a state employee. So....sexual harassment was meeting [B]bunniculas legal definition.[/B]
I still agree with KatyD's post...that this is just politics as usual and happens on both side of the aisle.
posted on December 24, 2000 07:16:45 AM new
Uh, huh. "I'm not that kind of girl!"
Sorry Linda, but what you claim to be fact is allegation.
The entire episode was a cock and bull story from the get go. Started by Bush Sr's dirtman, and continued well into the Clinton presidency.
All of it, from the Paula Jones make believe story to the Starr investigations had only one purpose, and they failed.
The persistent and idiotic effort made a laughingstock of the Republican party and every single person who not only participated directly but also the herds of wishful believers.
Republicans have lost their senses in the same way that believers do in roadside revival meetings, believing that all will be cured for them if their faith is strong enough.
The Christian Coalition/Moral majority et al has you and everyone else who buys into the republican nonsense right where they want you now.
If Bush were to be reelected I've no doubt that you'll (all) then try to run a Pat Roberson clone to replace him, and then all citizens will be made to either accept baptism and sign faith commitments like citizens were made to turn in their freinds and family while signing loyalty oaths during the McCarthy hearings.
Like Sterling Hayden then, Democrats now are the only true patriots and the entire republican part structure ought to be tried for treason and hung. Criminals; subversives, liars, and thieves.
posted on December 24, 2000 07:52:30 AM new
Your right, of course. There is no reason for Clinton to take responsibility for his own actions, his lying under oath to both the people of the United States and the courts. He was forced to do these things by the Republicans, and the people who are religious. It's all their fault, not his. Right! It's clear that a lot of people agree with your 'spin', it's just not the way I see it.
It is so much easier to blame others than to take personal responsibility for one's own actions.
posted on December 24, 2000 08:08:36 AM new
Clinton did what he had to do to stop the time wasting ravings of republican hoards. He is the President, making as much as possible better for everyone, including republicans.
In other times and other places the entire lot of you would have been rounded up and shot. I'm not so sure that that won't be the republican response in a like situation.
One thing I do know is that the free willed people of the south are in for a miserable time. They won't be able to gas up their cars even without accepting some inane sermon from a born again republican whacko. Their kids will have to show some sort of party identification to get a coke at McDonald's.
And Linda, you talk up a big and biased party line but are you prepared to go and live in the backwards muck you support with such vehemence? Or are you content to sit where you are and wait for it to come to you?
